Why we should continue taking actions that are proven to work.

Beasty

riffmongous wrote: »

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing? Not to dispute it since I also read a few reports on it a few weeks ago, but that's it, they were all from a few weeks ago (around 10 - 13th March) and based off of very limited studies, do you know of anything more up to date, because there is a lot of new data since then?

It is being reported everywhere that you can show no symptoms and transmit the virus, and that has been the whole argument about social distancing. That's why they are making a very big deal about it.

Alf Veedersane

Nermal wrote: »

We're drastically underestimating how many people are really infected, and as a result wildly overestimating the hospital admissions, ICU requirements and lethality when formulating our policy response.

The policy response was based on the actual rate of increase in numbers being treated in ICU and ICU capacity.

DeVore

Kivaro wrote: »

And to add to that; when do we stop being contagious?
After just reading the government booklet, it says that we do not transmit the virus after our symptoms stop.
That statement caused me to pause to consider possible scenarios where this might not be true. But I'm unsure.

This is a highly contagious disease, which is why I believe it transmits before symptoms start.

This is from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html

Basically it says
1. At least 3 days since symptoms dissapated.
AND
2. 7 days since start of symptoms.

IE: the longer of these two and BOTH must have been passed.

johnnyskeleton

FVP3 wrote: »

Yes, but while I am not urging an end to these restrictions now, or in the very near future there will come a time when the economy will have to become an issue. This country went into this crisis with high debt level, so as there will be massive layoffs and increases in social protection, there will also be massive increases in debt. Banks might be affected again if the payments of mortgages stops.

Unless the ECB and other CBs monetize all the debt of all the Euro zone, or some other mechanism, then we will be in dire economic trouble worldwide. Some say that this time there aren't as many underlying problems in the banks, neither are they robust enough to endure liquidity issues for months.

So there is no clear solution.

Maybe we need to hit the big red reset button on the world economy!

Manion

It's important to remember a model for pandemic progression lead the UK not to lock down.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/

Modelling is a tool which provides useful information for those who understand how to interpret the results and the underlining assumptions. The model most Irish people would have an awareness of is the HERMES-13 Macro economics model used by the ESRI that predicted the famous "soft landing" in 2008.

BTW I've noticed some people saying it's a choice between the economy and saving lives, which while true in one sense, it's important to acknowledge recessions kill people and depressions kill a lot of people. There are models for that as well.

DeVore

To be fair, its also true that dead people dont spend much

Manion

And yet they still vote Sinn Fein.

/exits thread.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Our testing is terrible.

Why is it terrible?

growleaves

"People" is a lose term.

Personal abuse like this doesn't disabuse me of my suspicion of irrationality and hysteria on the part of many.

Also, the word you're looking for is "loose".

riffmongous

DaithiMC wrote: »

It doesn't matter if up to date or not, it has been observed, so it's a feature of the SARS-COV-2 virus, reference 2 in the below also points to further evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074995/

Well it does matter if it was observed in a study of 10 cases or 10000

DeVore wrote: »

This seems so generally accepted that its hard to cut through the noise and find studies of it. The best I can find is some links to CDC and also this from Harvard Medical 3 days ago but it doesnt give hard data.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-basics

Yeah.. that's why I was wondering if you had anything better

Signore Fancy Pants

Nermal wrote: »

Fine, personal response - informed by reading contrarian opinions, not by modelling runs.

We're drastically underestimating how many people are really infected, and as a result wildly overestimating the hospital admissions, ICU requirements and lethality when formulating our policy response.

We have no defined exit strategy from these policies - what's the trigger for reducing restrictions? If we don't reach it, are we just going to continue?

Our drop in output and increase in debt is already going to be enormous. We don't have control of our currency like the UK, so we can't inflate this away. Every euro we spend on this has to be paid back with interest. Who's going to shout stop?

Those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly should be self-isolating/cocooning. The rest of us need to return to a semblance of normality. We should obviously build up bed capacity and encourage whatever low-cost behavioural changes we can to slow the spread. Whatever results in our hospitals from this approach, triage it and treat it as best as possible and accept the results.

Nice response, I can see your point of view, thanks.

Theres a lot of uncertainty still and a long way to go.

riffmongous

Beasty wrote: »

It is being reported everywhere that you can show no symptoms and transmit the virus, and that has been the whole argument about social distancing. That's why they are making a very big deal about it.

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

Alf Veedersane

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

It's very difficult to assess that though. A lot of it has been determined by contact tracing, as far as I understand, which would mean determining retrospectively. So I don't think there's any way of getting a whole lot of specific information about who does or doesn't have it before symptoms develop because you're only able to infer by based on who you likely passed the infection on to and if you can isolate when that happened.

Opened to correction on that though...its just my understanding of it

riffmongous

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's very difficult to assess that though. A lot of it has been determined by contact tracing, as far as I understand, which would mean determining retrospectively. So I don't think there's any way of getting a whole lot of specific information about who does or doesn't have it before symptoms develop because you're only able to infer by based on who you likely passed the infection on to and if you can isolate when that happened.

Opened to correction on that though...its just my understanding of it

Possibly though from people already quarantined in some special circumstances, the cruise ships maybe or something similar

Alf Veedersane

riffmongous wrote: »

Possibly though from people already quarantined in some special circumstances, the cruise ships maybe or something similar

Still quite difficult to work out if someone had it before symptoms developed and also identify when they contracted it. Might even be more difficult to carry out contact tracing on a cruise as you might have come into contact with an infected passenger without either realising.

It would be interesting though.

riffmongous

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Still quite difficult to work out if someone had it before symptoms developed and also identify when they contracted it. Might even be more difficult to carry out contact tracing on a cruise as you might have come into contact with an infected passenger without either realising.

It would be interesting though.

Yeah sure, I'm just guessing or trying to think of possibilities. But I'm sure there's a phd student or post doc somewhere who can think of a strategy of how to do it properly, it's just a question of when and if it was done already.

DeVore

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

Its quite unclear. For example the WHO says it appears to be transmissable 24-48 hours before symptoms but doesnt consider this a significant vector. (source: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza )

But the ecdc said this:
Transmission in pre-symptomatic stage of infection:In addition to casereports, pre-symptomatic transmission has been inferred through modelling,and the proportion of pre-symptomatic transmission was estimated to be around 48% and 62%[41].Pre-symptomatic transmissionwas deemed likely based ona shorter serial interval of COVID-19 (4.0 to 4.6 days) than the mean incubation period(fivedays)with the authors indicating that many secondary transmissions would have already occurred at the time when symptomatic cases are detected and isolated[42].Major uncertainties remain in assessing the influence of pre-symptomatic transmission on the overall transmission dynamics of the pandemic.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/RRA-sixth-update-Outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19.pdf

Kivaro

DeVore wrote: »

This is from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html

Basically it says
1. At least 3 days since symptoms dissapated.
AND
2. 7 days since start of symptoms.

IE: the longer of these two and BOTH must have been passed.

And then what about the asymptomatic carriers? (rhetorical)
These could be prolific super-spreaders and many don't even know it.

This is why home testing kits are important for both the virus itself and the antibodies.

DeVore

Kivaro wrote: »

And then what about the asymptomatic carriers? (rhetorical)
These could be prolific super-spreaders and many don't even know it.

This is why home testing kits are important for both the virus itself and the antibodies.

Such a kit would be amazing and very welcome. But every country in the world is struggling just to get kits to test even the clearly sick.

When we can get those kits to people and they can self-test and report then we will be a LONG step closer to ending this and also having a clearer picture of the situation.

But thats not going to happen for a good while (IMHO).

Alf Veedersane

storker wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that you deliberately infected all those innocent little pi's in order to achieve this. I'm emailing PETA about this right now...

Pi r scared

DeVore

We're not trapped in here with the virus, the virus is trapped in here with us!

This is it

Lots of pasta and bog roll.

PMBC

DeVore - where are you in our hour of need? So much poorly informed posts on Boards that we need someone to give us an update.
I know v little of stats (3rd year elective) but had been doing a five day rolling average of deaths as I felt the daily numbers were very 'lumpy'!!
So Im not sure what to do with the numbers added yesterday - distribute that number proportionally over all the previous figures?
Anyway, it would be good to hear from you and hope you are well,

DeVore

I'm good thank you for asking, I've a company of data scientists I run trying to work out exactly whats happening to the insurance market at the moment (spoilers, its not good ), so things are busy

The problem with Irish death numbers is one of discontinuity of reporting criteria. Literally apples and oranges as they are changing the reporting criteria so roilling an average over them isnt going to make much sense

The best you could do is distribute the historic deaths over the previous days and try to rebuild the data you should have gotten and re-run the average. But its a mess really. The important thing is that the trend seems to be flatline, give or take some bumps.